Another look at the Trinity.

[redleghunter]

You must not know much abut biblical studies. Westerman is one of the premier OT scholars of teh 20th century. Also, received his doctorate from, the University of Zurich, though he previously attended Tubingen Schule, which is a leading school in theology. So, man, you are way, way off track here.

Actually you are stuck in the past.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's quite a lead in citing a transcription error.

The problem is not Christians who adhere to the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy but the fundamentalist liberal textual critics who never read the Chicago statement. I'm sure as a theologian you studied the various orthodox statements on Biblical inerrancy.

Who are earth are the "fundamentalist liberal ( contradiction in terms right there) liberal critics"? I and many other biblical scholars do not hold with the Chicago statement. I have shown you one very good example why.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually you are stuck in the past.

What makes you say that? it makes no sense. Actually, I don't think you are at all familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, of course. I have a doctorate in theology. Question is, Are you? Authorship of NT books can definitely be an issue We really don't know who wrote Mark, Like, the Acts. We know the ending of Mark was added much later. WE know the Johannie Comma is a much later addition, probably by later Trinitarians.

At which university do you run the theology dept?

 

[Hoghead1]

At which university do you run the theology dept?

What kind of a silly question is that? I never said I ran any theology department.

 

[redleghunter]

Who are earth are the "fundamentalist liberal ( contradiction in terms right there) liberal critics"? I and many other biblical scholars do not hold with the Chicago statement. I have shown you one very good example why.

I seriously doubt you ever read the Chicago statement or any other orthodox Christian positions on Biblical inerrancy. If you did you would not have used an obscure verse from an OT historical book.

Do you know the origin of the term Christian fundamentalist?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm sure you studied theologian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay ? If not I highly recommend reading his works especially the one focused on the Levant.

Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.

 

[redleghunter]

What makes you say that? it makes no sense. Actually, I don't think you are at all familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship.

I'm quite familiar with orthodox (little o) biblical scholarship and the historical positions of the Church. I find your brand of liberal theology which denies a sovereign and immutable God as a false gospel and leading people astray.

How do you test truth claims? By asking another theologian?

 

[Hoghead1]

I seriously doubt you ever read the Chicago statement or any other orthodox Christian positions on Biblical inerrancy. If you did you would not have used an obscure verse from an OT historical book.

Do you know the origin of the term Christian fundamentalist?

I have no idea where you are coming up with these silly comments and remarks. What obscure verse are you talking about? 2 Sam. 21:19? If so, that is not considered obscure. Many paper has been presented on that verse at the American Academy of Religion. Also, as I said, that is not the only contradiction. I just mentioned one concerning Paul. Also, there is a major contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 on the chronology.

 

[redleghunter]

Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.

Incomplete data.

 

[redleghunter]

Biblical inerrancy means that the events that Scripture describes happened exactly as Scripture describes them.

Read the Chicago statement and get back to me. Thanks.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Absurd response.

I will take note you changed the subject of this OP next time you post an OP. You do get a bit perturbed when others do so to your threads.

I changed the subject? How, by asking how the thread is on topic?

Your reading comprehension deficiency is causing problems yet again.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm quite familiar with orthodox (little o) biblical scholarship and the historical positions of the Church. I find your brand of liberal theology which denies a sovereign and immutable God as a false gospel and leading people astray.

How do you test truth claims? By asking another theologian?

OK, so now you are attacking my character. That's a big no, no here. When I spoke of contradictions in the Bible, I pointed to conflicting passages. If you want to talk about God's immutability, that is another topic, but I am happy to discuss that, as it is very much related to my dissertation topic. I think you should realize that the immutability of God is definitely no0t a biblical concept, contrary to popular myth. The Bible provides about 100 passages that speak of God as changing, such as Hosea 11:8 and Gen. 6:6. Because the Bible is not a book of metaphysics and presents only snap shots of God, which often conflict, the early fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics. According to more than one highly influential Hellenic school, the world of time and change is a big illusion, wholly evil. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. The truly divine, the "really real," is a realm of wholly immaterial, simple, immutable being. Incorporated into Christian theology, this led to a definition of God as without body, parts,passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Since the 40's, if not earlier, this model of God has been challenged by theologians as being too unrealistic, unbiblical and insensitive. If nothing can change in God, if saint or sinner, it makes no difference in God, then God is blissfully indifferent. but such an insensitive God makes no sense. Who can put any faith in an unresponsive God, who has no emotion, no real feelings, no compassion? So while I would agree that God is immutable in certain aspects, I also believe that God is also mutable. God, like any living personality, is a synthesis of consistency and change.

 

[redleghunter]

Ramsay's work isn't relevant here at all. What is relevant is the question how many pilgrimages Paul made to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5, Paul gives only three. All attempts to reconcile these figures have failed.

Show the 5 and I will show you there is no contradiction. And yes Ramsay is valid as he investigated the claims of Luke and Acts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Incomplete data.

Oh, no, it isn't. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Hoghead1]

Read the Chicago statement and get back to me. Thanks.

Been there, done that. You go back and read it.

 

[Hoghead1]

What do you as a Christian use as a transcendent source to test truth claims?

Depends on the truth claim. If it is something that is a question for science, then I look to science. Since many theological issues are outside the realm of science, I examine them for consistency and how well it fits in with our fundamental experiences of reality.

 

[Hoghead1]

Show the 5 and I will show you there is no contradiction. And yes Ramsay is valid as he investigated the claims of Luke and Acts.

Read Acts and count them up. This issue is well-documented and highly discussed in biblical studies.

 

[Hoghead1]

At which university do you run the theology dept?

What on earth prompted you to ask such a silly question? I never said I ran any theology department.

 

[ChetSinger]

Not a major error? Are you kidding? I'd say that was about as major as you can get.

Then we're looking at it differently. I think a single-character substitution error is about as minor as it gets.

Maybe, just maybe, the David cult wrote a puff piece about him and cut Elhanan out

Imo a single-character transcription error wins in terms of likelihood, since such errors are common.

Either way, it demonstrates that the Bible is not inerrant.

I no longer use the word 'inerrant' because it means different things to different people, and because some of the definitions become soooo complicated. What matters to me this this: how confident can I be that the message I am reading is the one the authors wrote? And in this case my confidence is high that 2 Sam 21:19 originally said that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. And my reasons are these:

• Such an explanation is consistent with the rest of Samuel and with Chronicles.
• The word 'brother' could've been dropped from 2 Sam 21:19 with only a single-character substitution (and the two characters are even similar!).